Oct 19, 2025; Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa (1) throws a pass against the Cleveland Browns during the first quarter at Huntington Bank Field. Photo: Scott Galvin-Imagn Images

Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa said he thinks it would be “pretty cool” to compete in an NFL International Series game in Israel’s capital, Jerusalem.

The Dolphins secured a 16-13 victory in overtime against the Washington Commanders in Madrid, Spain, in Sunday’s Week 11 matchup, which was the final international game of the season. At a postgame news conference closing out the NFL’s 2025 International Series, Tagovailoa, 27, was asked where would like to play a league game internationally. The athlete first mentioned his home state of Hawaii, where his close family still lives. “Shoot, it would be pretty cool to go play in Jerusalem, I don’t know,” he added. “That would be sick.”

Tagovailoa has already played three international games throughout his NFL career with the Dolphins – in London, England, in 2021 against the Jacksonville Jaguars and in Frankfurt, Germany, in 2023 against the Kansas City Chiefs. Miami lost both games.

Sunday night’s game at the Santiago Bernabeu marked the seventh international game of the 2025 NFL regular season, which included previous games in Brazil, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, and the UK. There have been no regular-season games in the Middle East or Asia.

US President Donald Trump in the Oval office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

US President Donald Trump on Sunday defended online provocateur Tucker Carlson after the far-right podcaster came under fire from prominent conservative figures for conducting a friendly interview with Nick Fuentes, an openly antisemitic white supremacist.

Trump’s defense came hours before a leading conservative intellectual, Robert P. George, announced on Monday his resignation from the board of the Heritage Foundation think tank, a decades-long fixture of right-wing political thought in Washington, DC that has faced widespread backlash for supporting Carlson’s decision to platform Fuentes.

“I think he’s good, we did some good interviews,” Trump told reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, referring to Carlson. “You can’t tell him [who] to interview. If he wants to interview Nick Fuentes — I don’t know much about him — but if he wants to do it, get the word out.”

Trump added that “people have to decide.”

A few minutes later, Trump reportedly said, “Meeting people, talking to people for somebody like Tucker — that’s what they do. You know, people are controversial. I’m not controversial, so I like it that way.”

Trump dined with Fuentes and rapper Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida in November 2022, when the hip-hop star had begun a media tour announcing a range of antisemitic and pro-Hitler views.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) responded to Trump’s latest comments on X.

“When leaders are asked about antisemitism, there’s only one responsible answer: denounce it,” the civil rights group posted. “President Trump’s refusal to condemn Nick Fuentes — an avowed antisemite — or to call out Tucker Carlson for amplifying him is unacceptable and dangerous.”

George, a well-known professor at Princeton University and one of the most respected scholarly voices on the political right, took a different approach to Carlson’s embrace of Fuentes and the subsequent backing of that relationship by Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.

“I have resigned from the board of the Heritage Foundation. I could not remain without a full retraction of the video released by Kevin Roberts, speaking for and in the name of Heritage, on October 30th,” George wrote in a Facebook post. “Although Kevin publicly apologized for some of what he said in the video, he could not offer a full retraction of its content. So, we reached an impasse.”

George described Roberts as “a good man” and noted the Heritage head had admitted his error. However, this was not sufficient. “What divided us was a difference of opinion about what was required to rectify the mistake,” George wrote.

The academic who specializes in political theory and public law wrote that his hope for Heritage was that the think tank “will be unbending and unflinching in its fidelity to its founding vision, upholding the moral principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the civic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.”

He continued, “I pray that Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.’ The anchor for the Heritage Foundation, and for our nation, and for every patriotic American is that creed. It must always be that creed. If we hold fast to it even when expediency counsels compromising it, we cannot go wrong. If we abandon it, we sign the death certificate of republican government and ordered liberty.”

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and the chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a leading libertarian think tank, expressed support for Roberts’ decision.

“Robert George is right about the moral rot at Heritage, and he’s not the one who needs to leave, though I totally understand his reasons for doing so,” Somin wrote. “I’m a former Heritage intern (way back in 1994) but would never work with them today.”

The Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the conservative think tank, expressed similar views on X.

“Robby George was the head of the ‘Kevin Roberts showed terrible judgment and there need to be consequences’ camp, which has apparently lost out to ‘everything is well, nothing to see here’ camp,” Shapiro wrote. “Heritage will now decline as an institution (or we will decline as a nation). Sad.”

Additional controversy over Carlson this weekend involved US Vice President JD Vance.

On Sunday, Vance re-shared an X post from conservative journalist Sloan Rachmuth and offered a defense of Carlson’s son, Buckley, who serves as the vice president’s deputy press secretary.

Rachmuth wrote, “Today, we learned that Tucker Carlson’s brother idolizes Nick Fuentes. Racism and antisemitism is a Carlson family trait. Is Tucker’s son Buckley, who serves as JD Vance’s top aide also a vile bigot? America deserves to know how deep the Carlson’s family ethnic and religious hatred runs.”

Vance responded in a post that as of Monday afternoon has gotten more than six million views: “Sloan Rachmuth is a ‘journalist’ who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn’t like the views of his father. Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it’s a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a good guy who does a great job for me.”

Continuing, Vance wrote that “Sloan describes herself as a defender of ‘Judeo-Christian Values.’ Is it a ‘Judeo-Christian value’ to lie about someone you don’t know? Not in any church I ever spent time in!”

Rachmuth pushed back against Vance on X.

“Mr. Vice President, that ‘someone I don’t know’ is one of your top advisors being paid with taxpayer funds,” she posted. “It’s not the guy who trims your shrubs or cuts your hair. And YES, defending Judeo-Christian values entails speaking out against the antisemitism that’s tearing our nation apart. It also involves questioning those at the highest level of government about their hires, and speaking truth to power when needed. Sir, shall I remain quiet while Jews like me are being targeted by massive media platforms, and while our country is being destroyed by hate?? Or can I continue to ask questions and fight against injustices without being unfairly questioned about my loyalty to my country? I look forward to hearing back from you.”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan at the UN Security Council. Photo: Wiki Commons

On Nov. 10, 1975 — almost 50 years ago to the day — Daniel Patrick Moynihan did something that few diplomats or public figures would dare attempt today: he told the truth in public, when the world preferred a lie.

As the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Moynihan rose before the General Assembly to condemn Resolution 3379 — the infamous measure that declared Zionism to be “a form of racism and racial discrimination.”

Moynihan saw, with prophetic clarity, that this was no ordinary resolution. It was a calculated attempt to turn antisemitism into international law and an effort to delegitimize the Jewish people’s right to self-determination under the guise of anti-racism. 

Moynihan warned plainly, “The United Nations is about to make antisemitism international law.”

And then, in words that still thunder half a century later, he declared: “[The United States] does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act … A great evil has been loosed upon the world.”

I frequently open lectures with that story. I tell my students and audiences that if they remember nothing else from my remarks, they should remember this: courage begins with naming things truthfully. It’s why Moynihan remains one of my heroes. At a time when global institutions and elite opinion had succumbed to moral cowardice, he reminded the world — and America — that truth is not negotiable.

The Corruption of Language

Moynihan once wrote, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

That line, often repeated but rarely understood, expressed his deepest conviction: that words must map to reality, not be twisted to serve ideology. When the United Nations turned Zionism — a movement of liberation — into a synonym for racism, it wasn’t merely lying about Israel. It was corrupting the moral language on which civilization depends.

That corruption of language is what Moynihan fought so fiercely against. His 1975 speech was not only about defending Israel; it was about defending truth. He understood that words matter; that they are the means by which we give order to the world around us, and that once institutions redefine words to suit politics, they lose moral legitimacy.

In Jewish terms, what Moynihan did that day was Kiddush Hashem, sanctifying the divine name by standing for truth before the nations. He refused to let a lie pass unchallenged, even when doing so made him unpopular among diplomats and intellectuals. For him, the duty to speak truth outweighed the instinct to please.

Echoes in Our Time

Half a century later, his words feel hauntingly relevant. The same moral inversion that he condemned at the UN now reappears across Western institutions.

On elite campuses, students chant that “Zionists don’t belong.” Faculty resolutions describe the murder of civilians as “resistance.” Jewish students are told that their identity is oppression and their longing for homeland a form of violence. The language of “decolonization” has become the new euphemism through which antisemitism cloaks itself in moral respectability.

Moynihan foresaw this. He understood that the battle for truth is never merely political; it is cultural and linguistic. His stand in 1975 was not only a defense of Israel but of liberal civilization itself.

As he argued, culture, not politics, determines the success of a society — yet politics can change a culture and save it from itself. At the UN, he embodied both truths and proved that culture and politics alike can be redeemed when courage and clarity converge.

Many in the diplomatic corps thought him reckless; others accused him of inflaming tensions. But Moynihan knew that civility without conviction is just another form of surrender.

In refusing to “tone down” his words, he restored to American diplomacy something that had been fading for years: moral seriousness.

On Dec. 16, 1991 — 16 years after his speech and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse — the United Nations repealed that infamous resolution. The reversal did not erase the damage, but it vindicated his courage and exposed the Soviet motives he had identified all along.

Geopolitical Tensions Today

Today, Moynihan’s moral framework faces new tests as the Abraham Accords expand into uncharted territory. As debates swirl over bringing Kazakhstan into the Abraham Accords, commentators like Amit Segal argue the move has little to do with Israel and everything to do with containing Iran and Russia.

Kazakhstan, a Muslim-majority state and the world’s largest uranium producer, accounting for about 40% of global supply, sits in a crucial corridor between Moscow’s weakening sphere and Tehran’s growing ambitions. For Washington, its inclusion symbolizes an attempt to expand the US-Israel-Arab alliance into Eurasia — a rebuke to authoritarian revisionism.

But others, like Shay Gal, warn that such moves may blur the moral map Moynihan fought to preserve. By tethering Israel’s normalization efforts to a bloc still tied to Moscow and influenced by Ankara — a government that has positioned itself as Hamas’ diplomatic advocate — the United States risks trading moral clarity for geopolitical convenience.

Moynihan would have understood this tension. He knew that alliances built without a moral spine eventually fracture under pressure. As historian Gil Troy recently wrote, Moynihan “backed Israel for reasons that had almost nothing to do with it.” He was defending the West’s moral vocabulary from Soviet distortion — the same “totalitarian mind” that “reeked of the totalitarian state.”

That distortion is visible today when democracies hesitate to call terrorism by its name or confuse appeasement with diplomacy. Whether in the UN, universities, or Washington’s corridors of power, the temptation to “tone down” the truth — to be “polite” in the face of lies — remains.

Moynihan mocked that instinct in 1975: “What is this word ‘toning down’; when you are faced with an out-right lie about the United States and we go in and say this is not true. Now, how do you tone that down? Do you say it is only half untrue?” he asked. “What kind of people are we? What kind of people do they think we are?”

He asked that question then. We should ask it again now.

The Lesson for Us

In my lectures, I tell students and audiences that moral courage isn’t about volume or virality. It’s about standing for something when every incentive points the other way. Moynihan didn’t posture. He told the truth in an unfriendly room — and did it with moral gravity. His example reminds us that education and citizenship alike begin with facts, not feelings, and that democracy cannot endure if we lose the courage to call things by their right names.

When Moynihan declared that “a great evil has been loosed upon the world,” he wasn’t speaking only of 1975. He was naming a permanent temptation: to believe that truth is negotiable, to mistake moral complexity for moral cowardice.

Moynihan’s life proves that civic courage and Jewish moral witness are inseparable. The fight against the world’s oldest hatred is not only Israel’s fight — it is the test of whether the West still believes in truth itself.

When the powerful grow timid and relativism reigns, we must remember Moynihan’s example: a man who refused to be silent while the world applauded a lie.

Because when a great evil is loosed upon the world, truth must be spoken aloud. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did just that. And that is why, half a century later, I begin my classes with his words and count him among my heroes.

Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.